Scott Aniol on "Manipulated Emotionalism" in Worship Music
In this article, Scott Aniol argues that many misuse music in worship:
- 249 views
He’s definitely not wrong that this happens.
The problem is, where is the line between making music that is beautiful and moving vs emotionally manipulative?
Some of the extremes are obvious, but in most cases there are lots of cultural and personal factors. Some of these factors are very local, in both place and time. But it helps a lot to have your theology of worship straight and make worship service choices with that theology firmly in mind.
But the cultural factors are going to vary widely and change over time.
One practical result is that it’s easy to inaccurately judge what’s really happening in places where they do things differently. It may not be at all what it looks (sounds) like to people who are not used to it or are coming from a different background.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron Blumer wrote: Some of the extremes are obvious, but in most cases there are lots of cultural and personal factors. Some of these factors are very local, in both place and time. But it helps a lot to have your theology of worship straight and make worship service choices with that theology firmly in mind.
In order for a theology of worship to be "straight," it must account for what God has revealed concerning unacceptable versus acceptable cultural and personal expression in the context of corporate worship. To that end, we must challenge and reject many widespread assumptions, assertions, and presuppositions that are not actually based on or in accord with divine revelation.
RajeshG wrote: In order for a theology of worship to be "straight," it must account for what God has revealed concerning unacceptable versus acceptable cultural and personal expression in the context of corporate worship. To that end, we must challenge and reject many widespread assumptions, assertions, and presuppositions that are not actually based on or in accord with divine revelation.
Of course we have to account for divine revelation about acceptable or unacceptable expression in the context of corporate worship as well as in other areas of Christian life. I think Paul was referring to this fact in his teaching about evangelism in 1 Cor 9 when he mentioned he was "under Christ's law." 1 Cor 9:21 says "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law." If a cultural element was unacceptable to God, that is, if it was contrary to Christ's law as Christ's law had been revealed to Paul, then Paul was not going to adopt it. However, if God had not shown a cultural element to be unacceptable, then Paul was willing to adopt it while he lived with people in that culture.
Kevin Miller wrote: Of course we have to account for divine revelation about acceptable or unacceptable expression in the context of corporate worship as well as in other areas of Christian life. I think Paul was referring to this fact in his teaching about evangelism in 1 Cor 9 when he mentioned he was "under Christ's law." 1 Cor 9:21 says "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law." If a cultural element was unacceptable to God, that is, if it was contrary to Christ's law as Christ's law had been revealed to Paul, then Paul was not going to adopt it. However, if God had not shown a cultural element to be unacceptable, then Paul was willing to adopt it while he lived with people in that culture.
The same Paul who wrote what you argue for here also wrote more in a NT epistle to the very same church that you do not account for:
2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
RajeshG wrote: The same Paul who wrote what you argue for here also wrote more in a NT epistle to the very same church that you do not account for:
I don't see how you can claim that I didn't account for those verses when I specifically said "If a cultural element was unacceptable to God, that is, if it was contrary to Christ's law as Christ's law had been revealed to Paul, then Paul was not going to adopt it."
Aaron Blumer wrote: Some of the extremes are obvious, but in most cases there are lots of cultural and personal factors. Some of these factors are very local, in both place and time. But it helps a lot to have your theology of worship straight and make worship service choices with that theology firmly in mind.
I'd like to hear you elaborate on what you believe a "straight" theology of worship comprises, especially concerning your views about cultural factors.
Discussion